If the US was invaded

[Recon Racoon 49]

EMP is an option, but not for a while. An actual deploy-able EMP is still years off, and even then we're probably the closest to having one. A likely source would be a high altitude detonation of a nuclear device, specifically in a low earth orbit for maximum effect. Line of sight is key.  

[Underdog 1,593]

There are many resources that this debtor nation has including valuable land. A mass migration from say China would be more likely.

[blksheep 466]

Three letters - EMP.

 

Then they could just wait offshore until we were done tearing ourselves apart fighting for food, water, electricity, medicine. 3 months later they could stroll in from anywhere they pleased and meet token resistance at best. Those of us most likely to be the ones "behind every blade of grass" and resist an invasion would be dead from the fight to survive while fending off others trying to do the same. Those fighters remaining would be weak, sick, and short on any ammo, weapons, and supplies that was stockpiled.

 

Over half of the sheeple would be dead and the rest starving. All the infrastructure would still be standing for their exploitation. No fallout. Roads and buildings still intact for the most part and manufacturing facilities, utilities, etc would take minor repairs to get back up and running.

 

The worst part, the part that really makes me sick.... After 3 months of starvation most remaining Americans would welcome an invading army if they brought food, MTV and Facebook back.

I hate MTV and despise fing facebook...

[W2MC 1,699]

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109.

[rich r 0]

Just turn off the Electricity. It will end everything. Banks will be frozen, wells will go off, gas stations will be gone.  Those with generators will last about a week. Food will stop being delivered. My mother was in Germany during WW2. They could run heat during the winter with coal or wood if it could be found. Finding unpolluted water was one of the great problems especially in the cities. Finding soap, the rarest commodity, could be traded for 3 gold watches that worked. Finding a piece of bread without mold, was unheard of. Finding an egg or an orange was impossible. They starved for two years. Where were the guns??? They were piled up everywhere along with ammunition in every city and hamlet, there was no need for them anymore. My father was a GI - they brought them food & water & soap. The communists from Russia just shot them, women and children in piles as in the concentration camps, the men were all dead except for the old. The infants everywhere just died.  

[RUTGERS95 890]

couldn't happen because of the armed populace.  No military could hope to hold the land of an armed populace

[Mach16lt 0]

WOLVERINES!

Yea... That's getting a +1

[Bob2222 317]

 

 

Otherwise, it won't happen. The last time the US was invaded was during WWII and it's even less feasible today.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II

 

http://www.history.com/topics/battle-of-the-aleutian-islands

[JrzyGuy30 0]

Three letters - EMP.

 

Then they could just wait offshore until we were done tearing ourselves apart fighting for food, water, electricity, medicine. 3 months later they could stroll in from anywhere they pleased and meet token resistance at best. Those of us most likely to be the ones "behind every blade of grass" and resist an invasion would be dead from the fight to survive while fending off others trying to do the same. Those fighters remaining would be weak, sick, and short on any ammo, weapons, and supplies that was stockpiled.

 

Over half of the sheeple would be dead and the rest starving. All the infrastructure would still be standing for their exploitation. No fallout. Roads and buildings still intact for the most part and manufacturing facilities, utilities, etc would take minor repairs to get back up and running.

 

The worst part, the part that really makes me sick.... After 3 months of starvation most remaining Americans would welcome an invading army if they brought food, MTV and Facebook back.

 

Sadly - this is true. Scary. Probably the only legitimate fear I have (except for a financial break down).

[dman2112 6]

If the Chinese invaded I would be upset because there would be no more Kung Po Chicken

[High Exposure 5,671]

couldn't happen because of the armed populace.  No military could hope to hold the land of an armed populace

If you think the "armed populace", especially the soft and weak citizens that this current nation of ours breeds, could stand up against a co-ordinated attack by a modern military force with artillery, air power, armor, communications network, trained soldiers, real time intelligence and observation assets and the ruthlessness to destroy us, you are out of your mind.

 

We couldn't get through a hurricane and two weeks without power last fall without tearing each other up. What do you think an artillery bombardment followed my an armored assault supported by air strikes and infantry would do to 90% of the people in your neighborhood? You think a few hunting buddies will be able to repel a coordinated assault by a trained fire team with LMG/MMG, grenades, and comms?

[RUTGERS95 890]

If you think the "armed populace", especially the soft and weak citizens that this current nation of ours breeds, could stand up against a co-ordinated attack by a modern military force with artillery, air power, armor, communications network, trained soldiers, real time intelligence and observation assets and the ruthlessness to destroy us, you are out of your mind.

 

We couldn't get through a hurricane and two weeks without power last fall without tearing each other up. What do you think an artillery bombardment followed my an armored assault supported by air strikes and infantry would do to 90% of the people in your neighborhood? You think a few hunting buddies will be able to repel a coordinated assault by a trained fire team with LMG/MMG, grenades, and comms?

couldn't disagree more.  You remove the restraints and you'd see a different side.  Besides, history is on my side on this one.  All one has to do is research the problem that armed rebels have caused, much less a armed populace with 300mm+ firearms, and you'll see it's not gonna happen.

 

love the wolverines comment before...lol    Funny story, took the kids to Williamsburg last week and bought the boys toy muskets.  While walking out, they were wearing their hats and shooting the guns.  I said, you don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes and then when done, you yell wolverines!  People around starting laughing and clapping.  Then they had militia drills, when done my boys starting shooting and did what I told them, nearly 100 people watching all clapped and laughed......got a vid...was awesome.

Nothing like the yell of 'wolverines' hahahaha

[RUTGERS95 890]

Just turn off the Electricity. It will end everything. Banks will be frozen, wells will go off, gas stations will be gone.  Those with generators will last about a week. Food will stop being delivered. My mother was in Germany during WW2. They could run heat during the winter with coal or wood if it could be found. Finding unpolluted water was one of the great problems especially in the cities. Finding soap, the rarest commodity, could be traded for 3 gold watches that worked. Finding a piece of bread without mold, was unheard of. Finding an egg or an orange was impossible. They starved for two years. Where were the guns??? They were piled up everywhere along with ammunition in every city and hamlet, there was no need for them anymore. My father was a GI - they brought them food & water & soap. The communists from Russia just shot them, women and children in piles as in the concentration camps, the men were all dead except for the old. The infants everywhere just died.  

agree, the water and sanitation would be the worst part. What the Russians did was just as barbaric as the Germans.  They'd whole up women in apartments and rape them for days, often the women would die.  The Russians condoned this as payback and men needing a break.  Absolutely horrific conditions.

 

Not sure about the guns part as most guns were hard to come by.  My grandfather had 7 brothers, 4 fought for the Germans and the others for us as they were here and American by then.

[leadunderpressure 52]

The Germans got a crew of demolition soldiers onto Long Island with a detailed plan to blow up the infrastructure during WWII. I see no reason why it couldn't be successfully repeated.

 

(They failed because their team lead chose to defect rather than carry out the orders)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[carguy3j 0]

Would a foreign nation's "regular" army, or even a coalition of nations, ever be able to successfully invade AND occupy the CONUS? Maybe. But, not if they just came at us openly, right from the start. We'd crush them in the air, and on the ocean before they ever got here. Even with the element of initial surprise, which would be nearly impossible for them to achieve (unless Canada turned on us. That, we'd never see coming, but we would still likely be able to detect the buildup/staging of troops/weapons), we'd quickly put a serious hurting on them. Sure, they could probably capture and hold a few cities, maybe even a few non-strategic states (if we let them), briefly, in the opening stages, while we decide what to do. After that, they'd be gone quickly.

 

That would be the stupid way. On the other hand, if they decided to "soften" us up, from the inside first, then it could be a different story. 9/11 proves that a determined group can do serious damage. If those guys had been part of a larger military operation, whose mission was soften the US for an invasion, then they would have forgotten about the towers, and went straight for more strategic targets. In the pre-9/11 atmosphere, if they could get the small group they did, to take a few commercial planes, then they certainly could have, with a real governments money backing them, purchased/acquired many more aircraft (small planes, filled with explosives), trained many more pilots, and coordinated a larger simultaneous attack. Send more then one big plane into the Pentagon,as one more plane would have probably rendered the Pentagon unable to function. One into the Whitehouse, as more of a Psy-Ops/ de-moralizing goal, rather then any real strategic value. Although, I suppose if they got lucky and caught the President, V.P., and or major aides/agency heads/etc.., it would create some serious problems for us. Put another airliner into 3-mile island. Maybe it leaks some radiation. At worst (for them), it at least causes major power outages. Send a few explosive packed Cessnas into each of the major bridges in/out of the city, while "ground units" simultaneously destroy/block all the tunnels. Ditto with the harbors. Sleeper cells working as dock workers/long shoremen take actions to disable the large commercial ports/receiving areas. No cranes and other equipment (which is specialized and difficult to replace) means no off-loading of goods. You've crippled a big chunk of the east coast, and created panic amongst the citizens.

 

Repeat this scene (coordinated to occur simultaneously), all over the country, and you've dealt a serious blow to the U.S's ability to respond. Couple that with a.) simultaneous diversionary attacks on our forces at various overseas locations, B.) along with stopping supplies/goods, at their point of origin (Ie, don't try to seize oil tankers on the high seas, as the US Navy would quickly resolve that situation. Rather stop the tankers while in port, in "softer" nations/harbors, and C.) possibly employing similar sleeper cell attacks in our allied nations, such as the UK. You don't need to do as much damage to them; just enough that they are too busy worrying about their own problems to help us.

 

Would most of our military still be perfectly intact? Sure. But, they would have a hard time, just dealing with the civilian chaos. Roads would be destroyed, or blocked with fleeing citizens, food and fuel would be difficult to acquire through "normal" channels, and you would have a lot of soldiers very worried about their own families. Some might even desert, to take take care or search for their missing family. Also, while the US does have means of operating in a self-sufficient manner, I doubt they are really prepared to do so on their own "home turf" They depend on the usual national/"civilian" infrastructure nearly as much as the rest of us. Sure, the major military installations could operate for a while, if totally cut off. But, many national guard "armories" look like not much more then big brick gymnasiums. A number of the air national guard units operate out of commercial airports. I doubt many are equipped for any sustained "off-the-grid" operation, at least not while at home. And what "self-sufficiency"' gear we have; I would guess that much of it is already deployed overseas.

 

Granted, none of this would be a small undertaking, BUT, we're not talking about Osama sending a few cave rats to knock down a building. If they could pull it off, a government funded/backed operation ( a REAL government, like Russia/China, not "Dictator-of-the-week-astan"), planned to play out over a number of years, could easily infiltrate the country and plant "sleepers" in any number of key positions; both civilian and military. The KGB did it in the Cold War. There is no reason to think it couldn't happen again. In fact, it would maybe be easier today. Yes, we have more sophisticated technology today, but we also have many, many more people, and less and less personal interaction as well. Years ago, a stranger would stick out. Today, everybody is a stranger, and nobody gives it a second thought. How many people have never even spoken to their next door neighbors?

 

I mean, its a KNOWN fact that that a number of "street gangs" have already infiltrated the US military:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10

 

So, why couldn't a foreign nations operatives?

[remixer 1,645]

Interesting thread.

 

I dont think any country needs to physically invade the US.  Our electric grid is so dated it could be knocked out quite quickly with some coordinated attack cells.  Once the grid goes down those in the big cities will end up eating each other.

[High Exposure 5,671]

couldn't disagree more. You remove the restraints and you'd see a different side. Besides, history is on my side on this one. All one has to do is research the problem that armed rebels have caused, much less a armed populace with 300mm+ firearms, and you'll see it's not gonna happen.

Never happen. Restraints or not, the sheep would be against them for fear of reprisal in an effort to save their own skins. They would undermine any resistance they few with enough sack to do it could muster.

 

Armed populace? Sure we have 300 million firearms but that isn't the real number that matters. Guns don't win wars, fighters, comms and supplies do - along with ROE and doctrine. How many true warriors are left in the US? How many people to bear those arms and slug it out with a real army? I have 6 ARs into safe. How many can I use at once? How many people do you know have the mental toughness and the mean to go up against a modern military force? So who do I give the other 5 rifles to?

 

You can't use history as a precedent either.

 

In the past when the leadership of invading nations were ruthless enough to carry out a true invasion with the only goal being victory, the disparity in the arms and training of the invading force and populace was minimal. Not like now. Everyone then had weapons training as there were no grocery stores and their guns were their lives. The citizens had the same weapons and similar training. Neither side had air, armor, satellite surveillance, comms.

 

If the invading force was up against a native force armed with weapons more primitive than theirs it was a slaughter and a landslide victory for the invading force every time.

 

You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in amy 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and the military do what they do.

 

A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, to comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties.

[PeteF 1,044]

HE

 

2 points:

 

Civilians standing up to a trained and equipped army?

Ever hear of Afganistan? USSR 0-1, US >10 years and still there.

 

What is the size of ANY countries standing army? If even 1% of US citizens take up arms, there are 3.5 million armed people.

Lets take the build up in Iraq for example 200K solidiers?

Would you enter a battle against 17 to one odds against people fighting for thiet lives?

[RUTGERS95 890]

Never happen. Restraints or not, the sheep would be against them for fear of reprisal in an effort to save their own skins. They would undermine any resistance they few with enough sack to do it could muster.

 

Armed populace? Sure we have 300 million firearms but that isn't the real number that matters. Guns don't win wars, fighters, comms and supplies do - along with ROE and doctrine. How many true warriors are left in the US? How many people to bear those arms and slug it out with a real army? I have 6 ARs into safe. How many can I use at once? How many people do you know have the mental toughness and the mean to go up against a modern military force? So who do I give the other 5 rifles to?

 

You can't use history as a precedent either.

 

In the past when the leadership of invading nations were ruthless enough to carry out a true invasion with the only goal being victory, the disparity in the arms and training of the invading force and populace was minimal. Not like now. Everyone then had weapons training as there were no grocery stores and their guns were their lives. The citizens had the same weapons and similar training. Neither side had air, armor, satellite surveillance, comms.

 

If the invading force was up against a native force armed with weapons more primitive than theirs it was a slaughter and a landslide victory for the invading force every time.

 

You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in amy 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and the military do what they do.

 

A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, to comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties.

we'll just have to agree to disagree then and I really believe we'll never find out which is good.....

[greatgunstatenj 32]

HE

 

2 points:

 

Civilians standing up to a trained and equipped army?

Ever hear of Afganistan? USSR 0-1, US >10 years and still there.

 

What is the size of ANY countries standing army? If even 1% of US citizens take up arms, there are 3.5 million armed people.

Lets take the build up in Iraq for example 200K solidiers?

Would you enter a battle against 17 to one odds against people fighting for thiet lives?

Chinese army has over 2 million active, 800k reserve give or take. I'm quite certain they could easily recruit ALOT more. I do see your point though. Hard to really predict how our populace would react.

[RUTGERS95 890]

HE

 

2 points:

 

Civilians standing up to a trained and equipped army?

Ever hear of Afganistan? USSR 0-1, US >10 years and still there.

 

What is the size of ANY countries standing army? If even 1% of US citizens take up arms, there are 3.5 million armed people.

Lets take the build up in Iraq for example 200K solidiers?

Would you enter a battle against 17 to one odds against people fighting for thiet lives?

let's not forget, these are 1 theater wars as well which further strengthens that argument

[carguy3j 0]

Never happen. Restraints or not, the sheep would be against them for fear of reprisal in an effort to save their own skins. They would undermine any resistance they few with enough sack to do it could muster.

True. But, they are called "sheep" for a reason. They might try to "sell out" the resistance, to save themselves. Don't give them the info/intelligence to do so. If they become enough of a problem... Well, then they become enemy sympathizers/collaborators/traitors. Harsh as it may be, some sacrifices may have to be made.

 

Armed populace? Sure we have 300 million firearms but that isn't the real number that matters. Guns don't win wars, fighters, comms and supplies do - along with ROE and doctrine. How many true warriors are left in the US? How many people to bear those arms and slug it out with a real army? I have 6 ARs into safe. How many can I use at once? How many people do you know have the mental toughness and the mean to go up against a modern military force? So who do I give the other 5 rifles to?

To your last question: Anybody who A.) you are confident won't turn it on you, and B.)you are confident is willing to point it at a "bad guy" and pull the trigger, and C.)you reasonably believe can hit the bad guys with said guns. They don't need to be trained marksmen; just good enough that they aren't a total waste of ammo. That's all that matters. Assuming this is Russia or China, we need numbers. Sure, a lot of the untrained resistance will probably end up getting themselves killed eventually, but as long as they can kill a number of "bad guys" first, then they have helped.

 

You say 300 million firearms. Is that just civilian owned? What about "un-documented" "illegal" stuff, such as machine guns and DDs in civilian hands? I think the populace has more "heavy" firepower then anybody really knows about. In a time of war such as this, many civilians could easily manufacture mortars, IED's, and even crude ROV/drones, out of RC planes/model rockets. Teenagers on YouTube build homemade guns. Also, the military has more guns/ammo/heavy weapons then they have soldiers to shoot/man them. In an all out invasion, I would think they would start arming willing civilians. Assign one or two fully trained regular soldier to a group of "draftee" civilian resistance fighters. You instantly double, triple, or even quadruple the size of the military. Granted your aren't going to pluck a plumber out of suburbia, and stick him in an F-22. But there are many things that minimally trained people can do, in a war-expedient situation, and still be combat effective, even if not up to the usual standards.

 

 

You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in amy 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and the military do what they do.

True, and this has probably been the cause of so many US casualties in these conflicts; by playing games and holding back. We won WW2, because we were willing to be ruthless. We bombed German cities. We nuked Japanese cities. They were ALL the enemy, and that was that.

 

A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, to comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties.

Well, I'm not so sure they would have "relatively unlimited supplies". Unless they took Canada first, they would be a long way from any means of re-supply. Further, assuming this IS Russia or China, or any similar com-bloc/former Soviet related country, they won't find much in the way of usable ammo here, to steal. They will most likely be primarily equipped with AKs, and derivatives, in their "native" caliber. All of our military's 5.56, 7.62 NATO, and .50BMG isn't going to help them. Sure, they might capture some of our rifles, but not enough to re-equip most of their troops. Again, sure they'll find some stuff, in the civilian population, but not enough to supply an invasion force.

[djg0770 481]

A coordinated attack targeting transportation routes into NYC and power and water utilities would bring a large area of the population quickly to its knees.

 

People were (practically?) barbaric after a few days without power, compound that w no news media, no water, no food etc and I think you'd quickly see "society" deteriorate.

[woodentoe 14]

This fantasy invasion also seems to forget that we have a very well equipped and superior conventional military with a solid command and control structure. If an actual invasion happened, you'd better believe we'd be having conscription and have every swinging dick on two legs getting handed a rifle.

[ChadShaft 0]

It's like nobody here has ever seen Red Dawn.

[ChadShaft 0]

Or Independence Day.

[High Exposure 5,671]

HE

2 points:

Civilians standing up to a trained and equipped army?

Ever hear of Afganistan? USSR 0-1, US >10 years and still there.

Apples to hand grenades. I answer that with my previous assertation:

 

You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in any 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and allow the military do what they need to do to win. A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, no comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties.

 

We have not fought an enemy in a total war campaign since the end of WWII. Even in WWI and WWII we had restraint. We have never told our generals "do whatever you have to do to win. You have unrestricted ROE. Take their homes from them and do what you need to do to ensure the citizenry is cowed and passive" (with the exception of the 2 atom bombs dropped on Japan). We have fought every war with kid gloves and an eye to our reputation on the world stage.

 

You take a nation, or group of nations, that are intent on taking over the US, then you can infer that they have already decided they don't care about humanitarian issues, amnesty international, the Hague or Geneva conventions, or their reputation in the UN. The US is the enforcer whenever these issues pop up. If they are invading us and win, who will make sure that they pay for their "war crimes"? You are also applying western occidental first world values, morals, and ethics to another culture.

 

Additionally, Afghanistan is not a comparison to the US. An Afghani citizen is used to privation, hunger, and doing more with less daily. They have been at war with some country, dynasty, kingdom, each other for hundreds of years. You cannot compare the soft citizens who can't live without Starbucks and American Idol to the people of Afghanistan.

 

What is the size of ANY countries standing army?

If even 1% of US citizens take up arms, there are 3.5 million armed people.

Lets take the build up in Iraq for example 200K solidiers?

Would you enter a battle against 17 to one odds against people fighting for thiet lives?

Since this is all hypothetical, who says it is one nation? It could be Russia, N. Korea, Cuba, Mexico, and China all together. Or all of South and Latin America combined.

 

Regardless of numbers, an untrained, ill equipped militia armed with small arms is no match for a modern military with bombers, gunships, mortars, guided missiles, tanks, APCs, a comms net, etc... that has the will to do what it takes to conquer a land and take it for themselves. How long do you think you and 5 of your neighbors will hold out against artillery, tanks, and gunships with the 2 ARs, the 870, and grandpa's hunting rifle.

 

You may fight a delaying action, you may have pockets of resistance, but you will never unlodge a determined modern military force.

 

True. But, they are called "sheep" for a reason. They might try to "sell out" the resistance, to save themselves. Don't give them the info/intelligence to do so. If they become enough of a problem... Well, then they become enemy sympathizers/collaborators/traitors. Harsh as it may be, some sacrifices may have to be made. To your last question: Anybody who A.) you are confident won't turn it on you, and B.)you are confident is willing to point it at a "bad guy" and pull the trigger, and C.)you reasonably believe can hit the bad guys with said guns. They don't need to be trained marksmen; just good enough that they aren't a total waste of ammo. That's all that matters. Assuming this is Russia or China, we need numbers. Sure, a lot of the untrained resistance will probably end up getting themselves killed eventually, but as long as they can kill a number of "bad guys" first, then they have helped.You say 300 million firearms. Is that just civilian owned? What about "un-documented" "illegal" stuff, such as machine guns and DDs in civilian hands? I think the populace has more "heavy" firepower then anybody really knows about. In a time of war such as this, many civilians could easily manufacture mortars, IED's, and even crude ROV/drones, out of RC planes/model rockets. Teenagers on YouTube build homemade guns. Also, the military has more guns/ammo/heavy weapons then they have soldiers to shoot/man them. In an all out invasion, I would think they would start arming willing civilians. Assign one or two fully trained regular soldier to a group of "draftee" civilian resistance fighters. You instantly double, triple, or even quadruple the size of the military. Granted your aren't going to pluck a plumber out of suburbia, and stick him in an F-22. But there are many things that minimally trained people can do, in a war-expedient situation, and still be combat effective, even if not up to the usual standards. True, and this has probably been the cause of so many US casualties in these conflicts; by playing games and holding back. We won WW2, because we were willing to be ruthless. We bombed German cities. We nuked Japanese cities. They were ALL the enemy, and that was that. Well, I'm not so sure they would have "relatively unlimited supplies". Unless they took Canada first, they would be a long way from any means of re-supply. Further, assuming this IS Russia or China, or any similar com-bloc/former Soviet related country, they won't find much in the way of usable ammo here, to steal. They will most likely be primarily equipped with AKs, and derivatives, in their "native" caliber. All of our military's 5.56, 7.62 NATO, and .50BMG isn't going to help them. Sure, they might capture some of our rifles, but not enough to re-equip most of their troops. Again, sure they'll find some stuff, in the civilian population, but not enough to supply an invasion force.

In my scenario the invasion happens months after an EMP attack. After 1/3-1/2 of all Americans are dead and the rest are starved. We have already taught the war for them by fighting with each other simply to survive.

 

I just believe that we are too soft as a nation to be useful to anyone, especially our military.

[Urban Grunt 44]

It's like nobody here has ever seen Red Dawn.

Sorry don't watch porn films.

[Albanian 121]

agree, the water and sanitation would be the worst part. What the Russians did was just as barbaric as the Germans.  They'd whole up women in apartments and rape them for days, often the women would die.  The Russians condoned this as payback and men needing a break.  Absolutely horrific conditions.

 

Not sure about the guns part as most guns were hard to come by.  My grandfather had 7 brothers, 4 fought for the Germans and the others for us as they were here and American by then.

 

They did this to little girls too, like children. I don't understand why you rarely hear about the atrocities Russia committed to its own citizens and German citizens, at least compared to how much you hear about the Holocaust. I knew about the Holocaust from elementary school and literally only really heard discussion of Russia's psychotic deeds in college. Barring personal research.

[10X 3,307]

It's like nobody here has ever seen Red Dawn.

 

Not to worry.  Carguy worked that reference in back in post #30.